Innovations in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Teaching (IMST²)1
Examples from a nationwide initiative for upper secondary Schools
in Austria
Ulrike Unterbruner, Monika Clark, Hermann Scherz & Konrad Krainer, Austria
Example one: “Survey”
The book “Longitude” by Dava Sobel was the starting point. It describes how the
problem of determining positions in navigation during the 18th century was solved and
discusses its historical significance. It tells us the story of the peculiar clockmaker
John Harrison, who gained advantage over England’s elite astronomers after a
contest lasting some decades and thus received an enormous cash prize, which had
been offered by the British parliament. This story and the background information
about the significance of scientific problem solving for future economic, political, and
social development served as a “red-thread” for an exciting teaching project, which
involved the subjects of mathematics, physics, geography, and economics, as well as
German language.
In this project 10th grade students (age 15-16) of an upper secondary school in
Vienna were faced with complex issues:
• The importance of a precise measurement of positions on earth for navigation,
the economy and world politics;
• The practical significance of mathematical problem solving (geodesy, survey);
• The understanding of scientific discoveries in a historical context (historical
development of global survey and early map-making);
• The necessity of setting up a reference system of measurements and
benchmarks like meridians and time zones.
1
A shorter version of this paper will appear in: Richter, L. & Engelhardt, R. (Eds.): Life of Science.
White Book of Educational Initiatives in Natural Science and Technology. Learning Lab Denmark:
Copenhagen 2002.
Concerning basic education, students should not only gain knowledge of relevant
facts and principles of surveying, but should most of all develop an understanding
and insight into:
• Why and how scientific work is done
• Motives and interests underlying the process
• Thoughts on culture and nature, now and then.
In order to achieve these demanding goals an interdisciplinary project seemed to be
most effective. Classes were organized that were greatly diverse and, at the same
time, were problem and student-oriented. Great emphasis was placed on
collaborative yet independent work in groups.
At the beginning of the project, the 15 to 16-year-olds read and discussed the book
“Longitude” in their German classes. The analysis of literature (text analysis) was an
unconventional starting point for scientific studies. Even though the students were not
as enthusiastic about the book as their teachers, it triggered some curiosity and
motivation to become further involved. Subsequently the students were introduced to
surveys of land and the universe in their physics classes. An overall view of the
development of surveying and cartography was provided in geography classes. And
finally, during mathematics classes students were equipped with the know-how
(trigonometry).
The students found themselves confronted with numerous demands such as the
phrasing of questions, the reading of subject-oriented literature, the graphical
representation of structural connections, the compiling of mind maps, and the
passing on of the acquired knowledge to classmates. The results of this several
week-long project were mind maps created by the students (see e.g. figure below)
with a subject comprising outlook on the subject matter, folders on the geographical
and physical aspects, and portfolios focusing on mathematics. For these portfolios
the students worked on problems they had posed themselves. Amongst others, they
studied the history of astronomy, ancient surveying instruments, spherical
trigonometry or even undertook specific activities such as surveying their own
schoolyard. To quote one of the girls after completing the task: “The calculations
were not difficult and all in all it was more fun than simply solving a problem out of a
book. Carrying out a survey out in the cold by yourself may be more time consuming
but it is definitely much more fun ...”.
Seite 2
A questionnaire filled out by the students served as a means of evaluation of the
project. On the whole, the students expressed great contentment. Despite initial
skepticism most of the students developed some interest in at least one part or
another. Many were astounded by the interconnections which were revealed to them
by this historical illustration. The highly motivated students were convinced that they
would derive great benefit in the future from the experiences gained in this project.
Some students, however, were overwhelmed by the complexity.
According to the students’ own assessment, more than half of the students were able
to contribute to the project and were satisfied with their personal increase in
knowledge. A greater majority wanted more projects of this kind, and asked to play a
greater role in the planning process of the classes in the future.
This report on an educational innovation is based on a “reflective paper” by a team of
teachers (Fertl, Salner-Gridling, Schaberreiter & Schröder 2002) of the priority
programme S1 “Basic education” of the Austrian initiative IMST².
The following report stems from teachers (Scherz, Ackerl, Lang, Owald & Tinnacher
2002) collaborating with the priority programme S2 “School development” of IMST². 2
Example two: Interdisciplinary learning combined with practical experiments in
a new subject called NWL (scientific lab practice)
The main reason why we decided to change something in the way we teach science
subjects at our school was that experience has taught us (and other teachers across
Europe) that the curiosity and enthusiasm with which children meet scientific
phenomena decreases considerably between the ages of 12 and 15, although this
2
More than 40 innovations have been supported by the IMST²-team in the school year 2001/02.
Descriptions of these innovations – which in general stem from teams of teachers at high schools, but
also at pedagogical academies and universities – can be found at http://imst.uni-klu.ac.at.
Seite 3
curiosity is noticeable between the ages of 10 and 11. We also felt that complex
thinking is often neglected. Interdisciplinary thinking, however, can be trained through
teaching science. Our main concern was also to make learning as dynamic and
practical as possible to help children grasp theoretical concepts on the one hand and,
on the other, to provide a “playground” in which they can acquire some skills that
they need when working in a scientific laboratory.
Fortunately, at our school this view was shared by many colleagues within a team of
science teachers and led to many fruitful discussions at school level starting in the
academic year 1995/96. This team was made up by five colleagues who have
developed different concepts over the years and after lengthy discussions have
devised the present concept. Once the concept had been laid down, the same team
designed the curriculum and course contents.
In many constructive meetings the team elaborated the following basic principles:
• Science subjects lend themselves to interdisciplinary learning. This makes close
collaboration between teachers necessary to enable work on the same topics,
which are then dealt with through the lens of the respective science subjects. At
the same time new teaching methods are developed.
• Practical work and experiments should make the teaching of science subjects,
which has become too theoretical, tangible for children again and thus provide
“hands-on” experience.
• Independent and autonomous learning should be encouraged, but this does not
mean that teachers will neglect the task of demanding achievement from
students.
• Clearly defined criteria for evaluation and assessment are also contained in this
new approach to enable students to understand the process of grading.
These ideas were to be realized in a curriculum for all years up to the final year. The
working title of this concept was NWL (Naturwissenschaftliches Labor), which can be
translated as “scientific laboratory practice” , and this name has been maintained to
highlight the interconnection between the various science subjects on the one hand,
and the laboratory practice on the other.
The Concept: “NWL“ (Scientific Laboratory Practice)
The introduction of authentic interdisciplinary learning and preparation for an
interdisciplinary exam which students can take as one of their “A”-levels. Teaching is
enhanced through the increased number of experiments and practical work, which
also means more learner-independence (this track is currently part of a project in the
IMST² priority programme S4 “practice-oriented research”). Lessons are taught in
double periods (100 minutes) with one double period per week. The classes are
Seite 4
divided into two groups. In each group there are 15 students. For each course there
is a curriculum with attainment targets and a number of experiments to choose from.
Basically, as much “hands-on” experience as possible should be provided in each
lesson in each subject. Assessment of students’ achievement is done in the form of a
written test referring to each unit, sometimes written lab reports are looked at, and
the practical work is also assessed continuously. Both teachers of the course then
award the grades.
The actual units have been put together in such a way that, on the one hand, the
theoretical aspects are not neglected and a list of reference materials is also
available and, on the other hand, the units contain clearly defined tasks to be carried
out by the students. The use of new technologies and different media as well as
research work done in the library is encouraged.
The individual topics of the NWL should, if possible, be part of the regular science
curriculum taught in addition to this course, which is, however, a subject in its own
right and does not always follow the curriculum of all the science subjects.
The NWL is presently taught in the following combinations:
Grade 8: Chemistry and Biology
Grade 10: Biology and Physics
Grade 11: Chemistry and Physics
Grade 12: Biology and Chemistry
By the academic year 1999/2000 the NWL was taught in 11 classes by 13 different
teachers and can now be viewed as a fully integrated subject, which is part of the
whole “school programme” (a document that describes the current major issues of a
school’s development process, including the plan for the evaluation of the intended
activities).
The staff teaching this course made the following observations:
The number of tasks should be limited, which allows more time for careful work done
by students and gives us a chance to better deal with questions raised by the
students.
The tasks should be formulated in a way that fosters independent learning.
In order to keep frustration levels low the tasks should not be too difficult at the
beginning.
Seite 5
The introduction of an assessment scale which students are familiar with has
simplified the task of assessment by two teachers and is approved of by the
students.
Our observations in the classroom, from students’ feedback (also in written form),
parents’ reactions and the increasing number of students in this type of secondary
school have shown that this new approach is welcomed.
The development of this new subject and its evaluation were described in an IMST²
S2-report (Ackerl, Lang & Scherz 2001). The actual course content is put together by
the teachers who jointly teach that course, and is based on the overall curriculum.
You can see the topics for individual years on our homepage:
http://www.bgbrgleibnitz.at
English as a Working Language:
The team has always felt that English is very important for scientists, and this is why
English has been used as a working language in science lessons from the outset.
Since the academic year 2001, the scope of English has been extended and a
number of units have been translated. A teacher training course was also offered at
our school to help teachers to overcome their inhibitions when speaking English.
Consequently, year 4 was largely taught in English and some units were taught in
English in year 7. Our involvement with the use of English in the NWL was
documented in an IMST²-S2 report (Clark, Lechner, Cziglar-Benko & Schweinzger
2002).3
Goals and activities of a nationwide Austrian initiative IMST²
These two examples from the school year 2001/02 show innovations initiated and
supported by the long-term nationwide initiative, IMST² – Innovations in Mathematics,
Science and Technology Teaching, involving the subjects biology and environmental
education, chemistry, mathematics and physics. The addition of "Technology" is to
express the fundamental importance of technologies for mathematics and science
teaching. The Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is financing the
four-year initiative, starting with a pilot project IMST² in the school year 2000-01.
3
It should be mentioned that the NWL concept motivated many school teams within IMST²-S2 to study
that specific approach. Some teams even organized a visit to NWL or invited the teachers of that
initiative to come to their school in order to report their experiences. The IMST² project strongly
supports such forms of “horizontal” professional exchange among teachers.
Seite 6
In the following, the initiative’s goals, tasks and intervention assumptions are briefly
described.
The long-term goals of the IMST² initiative are:
Better basic education – higher quality of understanding, problem solving,
reasoning and reflection.
Bigger variety of teaching and learning styles – creativity, independence, gender
sensitive teaching and learning, supported by new media and technology.
More and better designed forms of professional exchange of experiences
among teachers, contributing also to the further development of the whole school.
Setting up and further developing a network that supports carrying out and
evaluating innovations, and for communicating these in various forms to a wider
public.
Improved “image” – more favorable perceptions and expectations with regard to
mathematics and science in schools and society.
Four priority programmes (S1 – S4) have been established with the following
reasoning:
Basic education (S1): The unclear expectations concerning qualifications, knowledge
and contents that students need when leaving secondary school. The four S1-teams
(biology and environmental education, chemistry, mathematics and physics) support
initiatives at schools that reflect such expectations and they aim at working out
(interdisciplinarily interconnected) concepts for basic education at the upper
secondary level for the four subjects. These concepts, which were intended to be
generated by theoretical considerations and by practical experiences from the
collaboration with schools, and thus negotiated by a wider form – are expected to be
a key element for a support system for mathematics and science teaching. It is
assumed that the teachers’ clearer view on the importance of goals and content
might raise the quality of learning and teaching.
School development (S2): The relatively low status of the subjects biology and
environmental education, chemistry, mathematics and physics at schools, in
comparison to their importance in society and for the economy, might lead, in times
of greater autonomy of schools, to a situation where, in general, these subjects are
left behind when schools change their profile. The S2-team supports schools that set
a focus on mathematics and science teaching and tries to establish a network of
such schools. Alongside this, and drawing on the practical experiences, it aims at
working out a concept that reflects the initiation, support and evaluation of school
development processes that (partially) focus on the enhancement of mathematics
and science teaching. This concept is also intended as an important element of a
Seite 7
future support system. It is assumed that organizational development (often
underestimated in subject didactics) – when properly linked with classroom
development – makes a crucial contribution to the quality of learning and teaching.
Teaching and learning processes (S3): The dominance of relatively passive forms of
learning, not sufficiently taking into account the individual needs of students in
general, and the low interest and the poor results of Austrian girls in the TIMSS
achievement test in particular. The S3-team both supports innovations at schools
focusing on situation-appropriate teaching and learning processes, and aims at
working out a concept for generating, analyzing and evaluating such processes.
Such a concept, supplemented by material like a CD with video-clips of real teaching
that is intended to be used in pre- and in-service teacher education, should support
teachers’ growth in planning and reflecting on their own teaching. It is assumed that
such an increased competence has a deep impact on teaching and learning
processes.
Practice-oriented research (S4): The lack of well-developed practice-relevant
research and development in mathematics education and in science education in
particular. The S4-team initiates, finances and supports teams of schoolteachers or
university teacher educators (or mixed teams) who carry out investigations into their
own teaching (action research) or classical research projects. Following the analyses
of a preceding research project (IMST), the promotion of students’ independent
learning is seen as a major goal, hence the projects focus on that issue. The team
also aims at working out a concept for the promotion of subject-didactic research and
culture. Through raising teachers’ and teacher educators’ interest and competence in
practice-relevant research, the network of researchers in mathematics and science
education is expected to grow, both in quality and quantity. A stronger mathematics
and science education, where theoreticians and practitioners collaborate more
intensively, is expected to be a fundamental part of a support system for school
practice.
This shows that each of the four priority programme teams has two important –
closely interconnected – tasks: firstly, to support innovations at schools (and in S4
also in teacher education) and secondly, to work out concepts that better help to
plan, describe and understand such innovations.
Innovations are the key feature of the way of IMST² aims at establishing a nationwide
support system. The corresponding basic assumptions behind this intervention into
the educational system are (for more detail see Krainer et al. 2002, p. 51-52):
• Starting from strengths: Innovations are initiated, supported and made visible,
thus motivating others to join in, stimulating “attraction” instead of generating
“pressure”.
Seite 8
• Innovations are not regarded as singular events that replace an ineffective
practice but as continuous processes that lead to a natural further development of
practice.
• Participation is voluntary; teachers and schools have ownership over their
innovations.
• There is no “best practice” which might be defined by an external authority. For
each learning and teaching different approaches to “good practice” exist.
Innovations are planned steps towards a “good practice”.
• Through innovations and reflections teachers construct their own professional
growth (likewise the students are seen as active learners).
• Writing down the experiences in a systematic way means a second cycle of
reflection takes place, and it provides the opportunity for more people to learn
from those experiences.
• The dissemination of innovations passes along personal relationships and
experiences.
• One powerful strategy for spreading innovations to a whole system is to initiate
regional networks and to promote their communication with other networks.
Another important feature of IMST² is the emphasis on supporting teams of teachers
from one school. The background for this approach is the experience that working
with single teachers from different schools may often result in considerable progress
for individual teachers but does not necessarily have any impact on other teachers in
their school (Krainer 2001). If professional communication among teachers is not an
important feature of the culture of a school, innovations by individual teachers remain
limited to their own heads and classrooms. Even a pair of colleagues co-operating
successfully might not be enough to constitute a critical mass. Of great importance is
the support of the principal. In IMST², therefore, the teams of priority programmes
sign contracts with teams of teachers, and these documents which define the goals
and content of the collaboration are also signed by the principal.
Evaluation is an integral part of the IMST² initiative whereby three different functions
have been defined:
• The process-oriented evaluation should generate, in a continuous feedback
process, steering knowledge for the project management and the project teams in
order to further develop the internal structures and processes. Sample
instruments are interviews with team members about their views on the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the project or feedback by an advisory
board (consisting of representatives from theory and practice).
• The outcome-oriented evaluation should work out the impact of the project at
different levels of the educational system (students, teachers, schools, teacher
education institutes, etc.). Sample instruments are case studies about teachers’
Seite 9
professional growth or questionnaires for schools (e.g. assessing the clarity of the
project goals).
• The knowledge-oriented evaluation should generate new theoretical and practical
knowledge that will form a basis for improving support for innovations at schools.
Results of a questionnaire
In February 2001, a questionnaire was sent to 86 schools in order to get a
preliminary feedback (see e.g. Specht in IFF 2001). 63 questionnaires (73%) were
sent back and showed a representative distribution concerning the four priority
programmes. It was not surprising to see that the decisions for collaborating in IMST²
were mostly taken by single persons (52% teachers, 12% principals). In no case was
the decision made during an official school meeting, neither in a teacher conference
nor in a school partnership forum. This reflects our experience that only few schools
have established subject-related teams and forums where teachers regularly meet
and share experiences. The responses to another question (previous forms of
collaboration among teachers) show a similar picture: only 30% of schools reported
that they already had systematic collaboration among their subject group or in an
interdisciplinary context; 59% regarded the collaboration as informal, and 11% even
felt that there was no subject-related collaboration among colleagues at their school
at all. Both results support our view that Austrian teachers to a large extent are lone
fighters in their schools. Considering the four dimensions of professional practice –
action, reflection, autonomy and networking (see e.g. Krainer 2001), there is much
individual autonomy and much action, but less reflection and networking among
teachers. This underlines both the necessity and the big challenge of IMST² to work
with teams of teachers (and not individuals) in order to contribute to the
establishment of a culture of professional communication and collaboration among
teachers. 31% of the schools reported that they did not carry out previous or recent
initiatives for the further development of mathematics or science teaching, thus taking
IMST² as the first opportunity to jointly share experiences and acquire external
support. This means that the project reaches a considerable amount of teachers that
had not so far been involved in joint activities concerning mathematics and science
teaching at their school. The schools’ reasons for participating in IMST² are
predominantly pedagogical and intrinsic in origin: “raising students’ interest and
understanding”, “further developing the culture of teaching and assessing”, and
“improving students’ achievements” were the most commonly named motives,
whereas, for example, “proposal by the principal” was ranked last.
More examples of educational innovations
Four innovations at IMST² schools that teachers planned and carried out during the
school year 2000/01 are briefly sketched below. They all relate to the use of
technology in mathematics teaching and each stem from one of the four priority
programmes:
Seite 10
S1 Basic education: The project “Promoting talented students in mathematics
teaching” at a Higher Vocational School (HAK) supports grade 10 students’ work on
the topics “interpolation” and “regression”. The students work almost independently in
pairs using Mathematica and MathSchoolHelp.
S2 School development: The project “Mathematics with Derive and Excel in a
notebook class” at a Secondary School (Gymnasium) takes advantage of the fact
that all students of a grade 9 class have received a notebook. The students work on
topics like “linear quadratic functions” and “circumcentre of a triangle”.
S3 Teaching and learning processes: Following a variety of preparatory initiatives,
the project “How do CAS and intelligent calculators change mathematics teaching?”
at a Higher Technical School (HTL) will investigate school-leavers’ beliefs concerning
the impact of CAS, with a particular focus on the gender aspect.
S4 Practice-oriented Research: Within the project “Trigonometry” at a Secondary
School (Gymnasium) 10th grade students independently work in a sequence of
“stations” with different learning activities. At one station the students (using a TI 85
or TI 92) were supported by one of the 12th grade students.
Some sample teachers’ comments from their written reports on the use of technology
are:
The use of technology promotes a variety of learning styles (“... makes math less
dry.”)
It promotes independent and active learning. (Students like this kind of work and it
gives them a lot of freedom and space for initiative.)
It means new roles for students and teachers (The teacher becomes a facilitator for
his/her students on several levels: e.g. in the case of problems with hardware and
software as well as with the students’ independent study of mathematical problems.
This situation significantly enhanced the relationship between students and
teachers.).
It is labor intensive and generates high expectations of the teacher (“The students
expect that we know an answer to every question and a solution to every problem,
and besides we should help each student quite individually ...”).
The challenge of using technology is to find a good balance between the learning of
high/low achievers and girls/boys, because technology tends to widen the gap (“Low-
achievers have a smaller chance than in traditional lessons to regain lost ground
through hard work and practice.”).
It might be argued that such results are not new at all and can be read in several
publications. However, whether a specific teacher really finds in such research
reports the viable support with regard to his or her context and situation is
questionable. It is the basic assumption of IMST² that teachers, by starting with their
own questions, investigating relevant aspects of their practice, collaborating with
other teachers at their own school, getting support from teacher educators, and
Seite 11
writing down their findings, have a better chance of constructing their own local
knowledge, which they need to meet the challenges of their practice.
References
Fertl, I., Salner-Gridling, I., Schabereiter, C. & Schröder, B. (2002).
Fächerübergreifende Lehrerkooperation im Unterrichtsprojekt “Vermessung“.
Projektbericht im Rahmen des Schwerpunktprogramms S1 des Projekts IMST².
Wien: IFF.
IFF (Ed.) (2001). Zweiter Zwischenbericht zum Projekt IMST² – Innovations in
Mathematics, Science and Technology Teaching. Im Auftrag des BMBWK.
Klagenfurt: IFF.
Krainer, K. (2001). Teachers’ Growth is More Than the Growth of Individual
Teachers: The Case of Gisela. In: Lin, F.-L. & Cooney, T. (Eds.): Making Sense of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 271-293. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer.
Krainer, K., Dörfler, W., Jungwirth, H., Kühnelt, H., Rauch F. & Stern, T. (Eds.)
(2002). Lernen im Aufbruch: Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Pilotprojekt
IMST². Innsbruck-Wien-München-Bozen: Studienverlag.
Scherz, H., Ackerl, B., Lang, C., Owald, P. & Tinnacher K.H. (2002).
Fächerübergreifender Unterricht mit experimentellem Schwerpunkt am Beispiel
Naturwissenschaftliches Labor (NWL). Projektbericht im Rahmen des
Schwerpunktprogramms S1 des Projekts IMST². Wien: IFF.
Monika Clark, Teacher at the BG/BRG Leibnitz (High School), Austria. Member of the
school’s “scientific lab practice”, co-ordinator of the school’s IMST²-S2-initiative with
regard to school development in the field of science teaching.
Konrad Krainer, Professor at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of
Klagenfurt, Austria. Works in the fields of mathematics education, professionalization
of teachers, and school development. Editor of the Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, project director of IMST².
Hermann Scherz, Teacher at the BG/BRG Leibnitz (High School), Austria. Co-
ordinator of the school’s “scientific lab practice”, co-ordinator of the school’s IMST²-
S2-initiative with regard to school development in the field of science teaching.
Ulrike Unterbruner, Associate Professor at the Institute for Science Education,
University of Salzburg, Austria. Works in the fields of multimedia learning and
teaching, environmental education, health education, and teacher training. Leader of
the IMST²-S1-Team (biology and environmental education).
Seite 12
